Important Case Law

(1)

Act Sec. Citation

Stamp Act S 35 AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 1489

Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 2009 (6) AIR Bom R 356 (Nagpur Bench)

Limitation Act Art. 54 AIR 2008 (NOC) 506 (KAR.)

Limitation Act Art. 137

JT 2006 (6) SC 253

Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation ActS. 47 AIR 2007 RAJASTHAN 47

Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation ActS.11 AIR 1991 Raj 42

Rajasthan Rent Control Act S. 15 AIR 2010 (NOC) 894 (RAJ.)

Rajasthan Rent Control Act S.21(3), 15(6) and S. 9 AIR 2010 (NOC) 704 (RAJ.)

Rajasthan Rent Control Act S. 18 AIR 2009 RAJASTHAN 94

Rajasthan Rent Control Act O. 8, R. 1 AIR 2009 RAJASTHAN 87

Rajasthan Rent Control Act S. 21 AIR 2008 RAJASTHAN 156

Civil Procedure Code O. 5, R. 20 AIR 2010 RAJASTHAN 170

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances ActS. 42 2010 CRI. L. J. 4484

Civil Procedure Code S. 152 AIR 2007 (NOC) 553 (MAD.)

Civil Procedure Code O.1, R. 10 JT 1996 (10) SC 266.

Civil Procedure Code O.26, R. 9 AIR 2008 (NOC) 1484 (RAJ.)

Civil Procedure Code O.26, R. 9 AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 616

Civil Procedure Code O.26, R. 9 AIR 2010 HIMACHAL PRADESH 5

Civil Procedure Code O.26, R. 9 AIR 2008 (NOC) 444 (MAD.)

Civil Procedure Code O.26, R. 9 2006 (5) AIR Kar R 351

Civil Procedure Code O.26, R. 10 AIR 2007 (NOC) 1777 (SIK.)

Civil Procedure Code O.26, R. 9 AIR 2008 (NOC) 1213 (A.P.)

Civil Procedure Code O.26, R. 9 2010 A I H C 2284.PDF

Civil Procedure Code O.26, R. 9 AIR 2009 (NOC) 2774 (ORI.)

Civil Procedure Code O.26, R. 9 AIR 2008 (NOC) 618 (CAL.)

Civil Procedure Code O.39, R. 1 AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 365

Civil Procedure Code O.39, R. 1 2002 (2) WLN 17

Negotiable Instruments Act S.142(b) AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 1209

Indian Penal Code S. 464 AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 840

Civil Procedure Code O. 6, R. 17 AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2897

Limitation Act S. 15 2010 CRI. L. J. 395

Limitation Act Art. 64, 65 2007 (2) AJHAR (NOC) 584 (RAJ.)

Registration Act S. 17 2007 (2) AJHAR (NOC) 584 (RAJ.)

Limitation Act Art. 136 AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1931

Limitation Act Smt.Sala Shiny Kiran vs Sala Uday Kiran

Evidence Act Section 68 JT 2009 (4) SC 307

Pre-emption Act JT 2009 (1) SC 550

Limitation Act Article 54 JT 2005 (9) SC 149

SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT 1963 Section 16 JT 1996 (Supp.) SC 642

Limitation Act Article 54 JT 1989 (SUPP.) SC 354

Limitation Act JT 1993 (1) SC 74

Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 AIR 2010 (NOC) 1058 (P. & H.)

Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 AIR 2010 PATNA 104

Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 AIR 2010 (NOC) 576 (BOM.)

Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 2010 (4) AIR Bom R 406

Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 2010 (1) AIR Bom R 76

(2)

Negotiable Instruments Act S. 138 2007 CRI. L. J. 2318 (GUJARAT HIGH COURT) Negotiable Instruments Act S. 138 2007 CRI. L. J. 2318 (GUJARAT HIGH COURT)

Court Fees Act S. 7(iv) AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 2807

Civil Procedure Code O. 6, R. 17 AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2671

Evidence Act S. 74 AIR 2008 (NOC) 1738)

Court Fees Act S. 7(iv) AIR 2008 PATNA 154

Registration Act S. 49 AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 1654

Stamp Act S. 21 AIR 2010 MADHYA PRADESH 62

Registration Act S. 17 AIR 2009 MADRAS 110

Stamp Act S. 35 AIR 2009 (NOC) 1057 (A.P.)

Civil Procedure Code O. 13, Rr. 3, 4, 6 2009 (2) AIR Bom R 296 FULL BENCH

Registration Act S. 73 AIR 2009 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 35

Transfer of Property Act S. 53A AIR 2009 (NOC) 868 (RAJ.)

Specific Relief Act S. 34 AIR 2007 (NOC) 30 (RAJ.)

Specific Relief Act S. 20 AIR 2007 RAJASTHAN 84

Specific Relief Act S. 6 AIR 2007 (NOC) 932 (RAJ.) (JAIPUR BENCH) Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation ActS. 41(1)(b) AIR 2007 (NOC) 932 (RAJ.) (JAIPUR BENCH) Specific Relief Act S. 10

Specific Relief Act S. 16

Stamp Act S. 47A AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2193

Stamp Act S. 31, 32, 56 AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 2854

Stamp Act S. 36, 33 AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 637

Stamp Act S. 54 AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 1541

Stamp Act S. 33, 35, 37, 48B AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 166

Evidence Act S. 90 AIR 2007 (NOC) 498 (RAJ.)

Civil Procedure Code O.1, R. 10 AIR 2008 RAJASTHAN 174

Specific Relief Act S. 16 AIR 2008 RAJASTHAN 174

Civil Procedure Code O.1, R. 10 AIR 2010 (NOC) 558 (RAJ.)

Specific Relief Act S. 19 AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 2663

Civil Procedure Code O.39, R. 1 AIR 2010 (NOC) 494 (RAJ.) Civil Procedure Code O. 23, R. 1 AIR 2009 RAJASTHAN 70

Rajasthan Land Revenue Act S. 82 AIR 2008 (NOC) 1097 (RAJ.)

Rajasthan Tennancy Act S. 15 AIR 2007 (NOC) 1742 (RAJ.) Rajasthan Land Revenue Act S. 261 AIR 2007 (NOC) 580 (RAJ) Rajasthan Land Revenue Act S. 261 AIR 2007 (NOC) 236 (RAJ.) Rajasthan Land Revenue Act S. 114 AIR 2007 (NOC) 2003 (RAJ.) Rajasthan Land Revenue Act S. 82 AIR 2008 (NOC) 1852 (RAJ.) Rajasthan Land Revenue Act S. 261 AIR 2008 (NOC) 1854 (RAJ.) Rajasthan Land Revenue Act S. 90-B AIR 2008 (NOC) 2366 (RAJ.) Rajasthan Land Revenue Act S. 82 AIR 2008 (NOC) 2849 (RAJ.) Rajasthan Land Revenue Act S. 136 AIR 2009 (NOC) 484 (RAJ.) Rajasthan Land Revenue Act S. 261 AIR 2009 (NOC) 2629 (RAJ.) Jaipur Development Authority ActS. 38 AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 1122 Jaipur Development Authority ActS. 25 AIR 2009 (NOC) 1389 (RAJ.) Jaipur Development Authority ActS. 29(3), (13) (3) AIR 2007 (NOC) 1594 (RAJ.) Jaipur Development Authority ActS. 16 AIR 2007 (NOC) 2499 (RAJ.) Jaipur Development Authority ActS. 30 AIR 2008 (NOC) 1644 (RAJ.) Jaipur Development Authority ActS. 15 AIR 2009 (NOC) 382 (RAJ.) Jaipur Development Authority ActS. 31 AIR 2009 (NOC) 382 (RAJ.) Jaipur Development Authority ActS. 54 AIR 2009 (NOC) 578 (RAJ.)

Registration Act S. 17 AIR 2007 (NOC) 320 (RAJ.)

Registration Act S. 17 AIR 2007 ANDHRA PRADESH 57 FULL BENCH

Registration Act S. 49 AIR 2007 (NOC) 575 (P & H )

Registration Act S. 17 AIR 2007 BOMBAY 111

Registration Act S. 17 AIR 2008 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 23

Registration Act S. 34, 35 AIR 2007 MADRAS 159

Registration Act S. 71, 69 AIR 2008 MADHYA PRADESH 86

Registration Act S. 58 2007 A I H C 1000 (ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT)

Registration Act S. 35, 74 AIR 2007 Karnataka 164

AIR 2007 (NOC) 1435 (RAJ.) = 2007 (1) WLC 38 AIR 2007 (NOC) 1435 (RAJ.) = 2007 (1) WLC 38

(3)

Registration Act S. 35, 74 AIR 2007 Karnataka 164

Registration Act S. 77 AIR 2007 HIMACHAL PRADESH 98

Registration Act S. 73 AIR 2008 Allahabad 66

Registration Act S. 34 2010 (4) AIR Kar R 647

Civil Procedure Code O. 13, R. 4 2010 AIR SCW 5200

Civil Procedure Code O. 39, R. 1 AIR 2010 (NOC) 940 (P. & H.)

Evidence Act S. 92 AIR 2010 GAUHATI 137

Evidence Act S. 74 2010 (4) AIR Bom R 41 (SUPREME COURT)

Evidence Act S. 111 2010 A I H C 2468 (GUJARAT HIGH COURT)

Registration Act S. 17 AIR 2010 RAJASTHAN 152

Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 3174 Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 3174 Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 1247

Civil Procedure Code O.1, R. 10 2007 AIR SCW 1490

Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 AIR 2007 (NOC) 806 (MAD.) Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 AIR 2007 JHARKHAND 88 Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 AIR 2009 RAJASTHAN 1

Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 2009 (3) ALJ (DOC) 116 (ALL.) (DB) ( Lucknow Bench) Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 JT 2005 (12) SC 302

Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 2007 AIR SCW 3456 Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 JT 2005 (7) SC 422 Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 JT 2007 (12) SC 295

Specific Relief Act S. 12 JT 1990 (1) SC 253

Civil Procedure Code O.1, R. 10 AIR 2009 RAJASTHAN 28 Civil Procedure Code O.39, R. 1 AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2292 Civil Procedure Code O.5, R. 20 AIR 2010 RAJASTHAN 170 Civil Procedure Code O.5, R. 20 2007 (6) ALJ 573

Civil Procedure Code O.5, R. 20 AIR 2007 (NOC) 664 (GUJ.) Civil Procedure Code O.5, R. 20 2007 (4) ALJ 474

Stamp Act S. 35 AIR 2007 (NOC) 2152 (DEL.)

Stamp Act S. 36 AIR 2007 Madhya Pradesh 230

Stamp Act S. 34 2010 (4) AIR Kar R 58

Stamp Act S. 35, 36 AIR 2007 Rajasthan 241

Stamp Act S. 49 AIR 2008 (NOC) 2639 (MAD.)

Registration Act S. 17 2006 (3) Civil Court Cases 298

Evidence Act S. 63 AIR 2009 RAJASTHAN 60

Registration Act S. 17 AIR 2010 RAJASTHAN 152

Stamp Act S. 35 AIR 2009 MADRAS 84

Stamp Act S. 34 AIR Bom R 72

Civil Procedure Code O.39, R. 1 AIR 2010 (NOC) 292 (RAJ.) Civil Procedure Code O.39, R. 1 2007 (4) ABR (NOC) 637 (BOM.) Civil Procedure Code O.39, R. 1 AIR 2007 (NOC) 1035 (PAT.) Civil Procedure Code O.39, R. 1 AIR 2007 (NOC) 169 (DEL.)

Evidence Act S. 115 AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 424

Criminal Procedure Code S. 145 2007 (6) ALJ (NOC) 1083 (ALL.)

Criminal Procedure Code S. 145 2007 (57) ACC 992

Criminal Procedure Code S. 145 2008 (1) AIR Kar R 560 Criminal Procedure Code S. 145 2007 CRI. L. J. 1885 Criminal Procedure Code S. 145 2008 (2) AIR Kar R 557 Criminal Procedure Code S. 145 2008 CRI. L. J. (NOC) 479

Criminal Procedure Code S. 145 2009 AIR SCW 5248

Civil Procedure Code O. 39 R. 1 2009 AIR SCW 5248

Negotiable Instruments Act S. 145 AIR 2010 (NOC) 785 (RAJ.) (Jaipur Bench)

Registration Act S. 17,49 AIR 2011 RAJASTHAN 24

Civil Procedure Code JT 2008 (3) SC 616

Civil Procedure Code O. 39, R. 1 AIR 2008 (NOC) 1692 (BOM.) Civil Procedure Code O. 39, R. 1 AIR 2007 (NOC) 504 (ORI.) Civil Procedure Code O. 39, R. 1 2010 AIR SCW 305

Civil Procedure Code O. 39, R. 1 AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 2291 Civil Procedure Code O. 39, R. 1 AIR 2006 SURPEME COURT 1474

(4)

Transfer of Property Act S. 52 AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 1332 Civil Procedure Code O.1, R. 10 AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 1332

Civil Procedure Code O. 6, R. 17 AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 1960

Specific Relief Act S. 16 AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 917

Specific Relief Act S. 16 AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 624

Specific Relief Act S. 15(2) AIR 2010 (NOC) (Supp) 1169 (BOM.) Specific Relief Act S. 20 AIR 2009 (NOC) 1681 (P. & H.)

Contract Act S. 20 AIR 2009 KARNATAKA 79

Hindu law 2007 (1) ABR (NOC) 71 (Bom)

Limitation Act Article 58 AIR 2007 (NOC) 1593 (P. & H.) Civil Procedure Code O. 39, R. 1 AIR 2009 (NOC) 1144 (ALL.) Civil Procedure Code O. 23, R. 1 AIR 2009 RAJASTHAN 70

Civil Procedure Code S. 96 AIR 2010 (NOC) 36 (BOM.)

Civil Procedure Code O. 39, R. 1 AIR 2010 (NOC) 494 (RAJ.)

Court Fees Act S. 6(iv)(ha) AIR 2010 (NOC) 1066 (BOM.)

Limitation Act S. 5 AIR 2008 (NOC) 2615 (RAJ.)

Limitation Act S. 5 2009 AIR SCW 5006

Limitation Act S. 5 AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 695

Limitation Act S. 5 AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 3043

Limitation Act S. 5 AIR 2008 (NOC) 2371 (KAR.)

Limitation Act S. 5 2009 CRI. L. J. 2595

Civil Procedure Code O. 9, R. 7 AIR 2007 Kerala 301 Civil Procedure Code O. 47, R. 1 AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 476 Civil Procedure Code O. 47, R. 1 2009 (1) AIR Kar R. 524 (DB) Civil Procedure Code O. 47, R. 1 2008 LAB. I. C. (NOC) 444 (RAJ.) Civil Procedure Code O. 47, R. 1 AIR 2007 (NOC) 795 (P. & H.) (DB) Indian Penal Code S. 279, 304A 2008 CRI. L. J. (NOC) 646

Criminal Procedure Code S. 227 2010 CRI. L. J. 1427 Criminal Procedure Code S. 227 2009 CRI. L. J. 4436 Indian Penal Code S. 279, 304A 2007 CRI. L. J. 1089

Civil Procedure Code O.9, R. 13 AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 1150

Motor Vehicles Act

Section 157 JT 2011 (1) SC 117

Juvenile Justice Act S. 12 2011 CRI. L. J. 1599

Civil Procedure Code O. 39, R. 1 AIR 2011 RAJASTHAN 61 Negotiable Instruments Act S. 138 2006 (4) AIR Kar R 242 Negotiable Instruments Act S. 138 2006 (4) AIR Kar R 242 Negotiable Instruments Act S. 138 2010 CRI. L. J. 1971

Civil Procedure Code AIR2009SC2847, JT2009(7)SC579, (2009)7SCC614

Civil Procedure Code S. 21 AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 1077

Civil Procedure Code O. 6, R. 17

Civil Procedure Code O. 6, R. 17 2011 (3) ALJ 126

Civil Procedure Code O. 6, R. 17 AIR 2008 (NOC) 2758 (RAJ.) Civil Procedure Code O. 6, R. 17 AIR 2007 (NOC) 2311 (P. & H.) Civil Procedure Code O. 6, R. 17 2011 (2) ALJ 215

Civil Procedure Code O. 6, R. 17 2010 AIHC (NOC) 844 (A.P.) Civil Procedure Code O. 6, R. 17 AIR 2009 GUJARAT 172 Civil Procedure Code O. 6, R. 17 AIR 2009 (NOC) 2748 (BOM.)

Motor Vehicles Act S. 166 2008 (1) AIR Jhar R 281 (DB)

Motor Vehicles Act S. 166 AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 1474

General Clauses Act S. 27 2007 CRI. L. J. 3214

Negotiable Instruments Act S. 138 2007 CRI. L. J. 3214

Negotiable Instruments Act S. 138 AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 109

(5)

Limitation Act S. 5 AIR 2008 (NOC) 2614 (RAJ.)

Evidence Act S. 65 AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 1492

Evidence Act S. 65 2007 (1) ALJ 313

Evidence Act S. 65 AIR 2008 (NOC) 733 (MAD.)

Evidence Act S. 65 2010 (4) AIR Kar R 144

Evidence Act S. 65

Evidence Act S. 65 2007 (2) ABR (NOC) 340 (BOM.)

Evidence Act S. 65 AIR 2010 (NOC) 701

Evidence Act S. 65 AIR 2008 (NOC) 2574 (P. & H.)

Civil Procedure Code O.39, R. 1 AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 2291 Civil Procedure Code O.39, R. 1 AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2292

Rajasthan Tennancy Act S. 15 AIR 2007 (NOC) 2466 (RAJ. Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 AIR 2009 RAJASTHAN 142 Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 AIR 2008 (NOC) 1259 (RAJ.) Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 AIR 2009 (NOC) 2783 (RAJ.) Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 AIR 2008 (NOC) 370 (RAJ.) Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 351

Court Fees Act S. 7 AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 2807

Karnataka Court-fees and Suits Valuation ActS. 24 2010 (4) AIR Kar R 772 Civil Procedure Code O. 9, R. 7 AIR 2010 (NOC) 765 (MAD.) Civil Procedure Code O. 9, R. 7 JT 2002 (4) SC 433

Hindu Succession Act S. 6 AIR 2007 (NOC) 2622 (BOM.)

Hindu Succession Act S. 82 AIR 2007 (NOC) 2236 (KAR.)

Hindu Succession Act S. 6 AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 1490

Motor Vehicles Act S. 147 2009 A I H C 403 (Uttarakhand High Court) Motor Vehicles Act S. 147 AIR 2010 (NOC) (Supp) 95 (KAR.)

Motor Vehicles Act S. 157 AIR 2008 (NOC) 2 (CHH.)

Indian Penal Code S. 354 AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 49

Civil Procedure Code O. 9, R. 13 AIR 2008 RAJASTHAN 206 Civil Procedure Code O. 22, R. 4 JT 1993 (4) SC 192

(6)

Text Headnote

Document not duly stamped — Effect — Unregistered Deed of sale — Adequate stamp duty not paid thereon — Not admissible in evidence in terms of S. 35 — Said document would not also be admissible for collateral purpose — Impounding of said document — Was proper. Registration Act (16 of 1908), S. 49.

Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) - O. 7, R. 11(d) — Re-jection of plaint — Ground of limitation — If a suit on face of it is barred by limitation it can be rejected under O. 7, R. 11 of Code — However question whether suit is within limitation is to be considered only on basis of averments in plaint. If a suit is on the face of it barred by limitation it can be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Code. In such a case it is not necessary to push the parties to trial merely because limitation is mixed question of fact and law. But it does not follow that the objections of the defendant to the date shown in the plaint as the date of accrual of cause of action can be looked into at that stage. The question whether the suit is within limitation or not would have to be considered by the Court for the purpose of application for rejection of plaint only on the basis of averments in the plaint. Limitation Act (36 of 1963) - Art. 54 — Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 20 — Suit for specific performance of contract — Starting point of limitation — If date is not fixed in contract limitation starts from date of refusal on part of defendant to perform contract — Refusal requires demand by plaintiff and if demand is refused, that gives cause of action — Refusal to re-deliver possession by defendant will not give rise to cause of action — Cause of action was for demand of execution of sale deed — Plaint does not show as to when demand was made by plaintiff for registering sale deed in his favour — Burden is on plaintiff to show that there was embargo to be lifted by Govt. and it had prevented plaintiff from seeking registration of the sale — Waiting for 19 years, does not give right to plaintiff to sue for specific performance, but for penalty of Rs.

30,000/-A plea of limitation cannot be decided as an abstract principle of law divorced from facts as in every case the starting point of limitation has to be ascertained which is entirely a question of fact. 30,000/-A plea of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact.

Counter-claim — Payment of Court-fees — Plaintiff filing appeal challenging decree of Court dismissing their suit for recovery of amount as also decreeing amount of counter-claim — Plaintiffs are required to pay Court-fee on amount of counter-claim — If court-fee is not paid in respect of decree on counter-claim, that part of decree would be final and would operate as res judicata. AIR 1997 Ker 318, Rel. on.

the merits of the case can be decided before the delivery of the judgment and if the court comes to the conclusion that the court-fee paid is deficient, it may defer the pronouncement of the judgment and ask the party to pay the deficit court-fee as per valuation of the Court, Thus, the multiplicity of the proceedings delay in the disposal of the suit and calling and recalling the witnesses every time can be avoided and it will serve the cause of justice and the cause of litigants also Eviction proceedings against tenants — Filing of affidavits by landlord — Act does not limit landlords—™ right to file affidavits after pleadings are complete and in course of inquiry — Landlord can file affidavits even after rejoinder is filed and prior permission of Court would not be necessary.

Eviction of tenant — Ground that landlord required suit shop for running his own business — Earlier landlord used to sit with his son in latter’s shop but subsequently there had been some disputes between them and relations between them became strained resulting thereby his son declined to allow his father to sit in shop in which his son had business of trading in cement — Bona fide need proved — Tenant liable to be evicted. viction of tenant — Ground of default in payment of rent and non-user of house — Tenant shown to be residing in Delhi and not in Jodhpur — Eviction ordered, not improper.

Rejection of plaint — Application for — Ground that suit for injunction was barred by law — Suit premises given on lease by general body of society to defendant by way of resolution — Prima facie relationship of landlord and tenant established — Suit filed for injunction was in effect for seeking revocation of said resolution and dispossession — Such a suit could only be filed before Rent Tribunal — Civil Court’s jurisdiction would be barred — Plaint liable to be rejected. Suit for eviction — Bona fide need of landlord — Plaintiff landlord needed suit land for construction of their own residential house — Defendant tenant had constructed his own show room and was using suit land only for keeping his wooden stock — Need of landlord held bona fide — Tenant liable to be evicted.

Suit for eviction — Ground of personal bona fide necessity — Death of landlord during pendency of suit — Bona fide need would continue even after his death as it was claimed for himself and his son — Subsequent events in form of sale of said property would not ipso facto upset the decree — Attornment in favour of purchaser would be automatic — Purchaser of property would be entitled for vacant possession. 1987 (Supp) SCC 630 and 1998 DNJ (Raj) 293, Distg. Filing of written statement by tenant — Outer limit of 45 days as prescribed by S. 15 (3) — Is directory and not mandatory — Court in its discretion can extend time for filing of written statement.

Suit for eviction — Ground of subletting — Suit property let out to original tenant prior to her entering into partnership firm — Subsequently he shifted to London and never returned — Partnership managed by other defendant and was never registered with Registrar of Firms — Partnership was thus drawn up merely to provide a cover and to make believe that original tenant had not parted with possession of suit premises in favour of defendant — Subletting proved — Eviction ordered, not improper. Bona fide need — Petition filed taking grounds of bona fide need and that property in question was taken on rent for residential purpose but, later on, school was opened in said premises and tenant started using said property for commercial purpose — Finding of fact recorded that premises was let out for commercial purpose — On such case Chapters II and III of Act will apply and landlord would be entitled for eviction decree upon ground of bona fide necessity.

Eviction — Ground of bona fide need — Suit filed only when tenant did not agree to pay enhanced rent — Petition also suffered from suppression of material facts — Claim for eviction on ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement liable to be rejected.

Suit for eviction — Personal bona fide necessity — Landlord having factory for manufacturing furniture and handicrafts required suit shop for opening their showroom of furniture and handicrafts — Plea that no books of accounts were produced before trial Court to show loss caused on account of non-setting up showroom, not tenable — Since sufferance of actual loss of non-setting up of showroom of furniture and handicrafts was not necessary as such loss could not be measured in terms of money nor it was recorded in books of accounts — Suit decreed on ground of personal bona fide need, not improper. Commercial premises — Suit for eviction — Bona fide need — Landlord had retired from Govt. service and he wanted to do his own business in suit premises — Death of landlord during pendency of appeal — Requirement of premises by his legal heirs namely widow will not extinguish on his death — Fact that widow was getting pension and her sons were also in employment, cannot be ground to deny her possession — Even widow has her own independent right of survival and earn her livelihood after death of her husband — Eviction ordered.

Suit for eviction — Default in payment of rent — Rent provisionally determined in terms of S. 13(3) of 1950 Act — But no order passed by trial court in suit and defence of tenant was not struck off — Subsequent withdrawal of suit after enforcement of Act of 2001 — No provision akin to provisions of S. 13(3) to 13(5) of the Act of 1950, providing for determination of rent provisionally or striking out defence on account of non payment of amount determined provisionally or monthly rent subsequent thereto, incorporated in Act of 2001 — Question of striking out the defence of the tenant in proceedings for eviction u/S. 9 of the Act of 2001 would not arise — Even if, any such right had accrued to petitioner during pendency of eviction proceedings before trial Court under Act of 1950, the same cannot be enforced in fresh eviction proceedings lodged under provisions of S. 9 of Act of 2001. Amendment in written statement — Permissibility — Crutial date is date of petition — Suit for eviction of tenant from shop — Amendment sought in appeal to incorporate plea that ground of bona fide necessity ceased to exist due to appointment of son of landlord in Bank — Fact of appointment was not in existence at stage of trial — If such application will be allowed at appellate stage then certainly at every stage after adjudication, parties will take plea of amendment and no trial Court will be able to adjudicate matter finally and there will be no end of dispute — Said ground cannot be allowed to take away ground of personal bona fide necessity of landlord — Amendment cannot be allowed. AIR 2005 SC 1274, Rel. on. AIR 2007 SC 2511, AIR 2002 SC 3369, Disting

Substituted service — Directions for, issued without recording satisfaction that defendants cannot be served personally — No efforts made to get defendants served personally in ordinary way — Service of summons cannot be considered to be sufficient and in accordance with law.

Setting aside ex parte decree — On basis of material on record, no conclusion could be drawn that defendants had notice about date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear before Court and answer plaintiff— s claim — In interest of justice, defendants deserve to be granted an opportunity to contest suit — Ex parte decree set aside.

Possession of contraband — Search and seizure — Competent authority — Sub-Inspector who conducted search and seizure was not posted as Station House Officer at relevant time at concerned Police Station — Thus, search and seizure cannot be said to have been conducted by competent officer — Conviction of accused liable to be set aside. Amendment of decree — Interest portion accidently slipped by office while drafting preliminary decree — Application to amend preliminary decree to incorporate interest portion of judgment of trial Court — It is not amendment to be carried out under O. 6, R. 17 — Mistake can be rectified u/S. 152.

Addition of a third party - If consequence of addition of a third party in a suit would involve a de novo trial, Court should normally disallow the application.

Appointment of local commissioner — Suit for partition of agricultural land and for permanent injunction — Evidence was yet to be adduced by plaintiff and issues were yet to be framed — Dismissal of application of defendant for appointment of commissioner for local inspection — Not erroneous.

Alleged encroachment of suit land of appellant Board — Respondents’ land adjacent to suit land — Application for demarcation by appellant before trial Court, was rejected — Application for appointment of Local Commissioner for demarcation of suit land filed by appellant before Appellate Court was also rejected — High Court did not consider whether Local Commissioner should be appointed for purpose of demarcation — Summarily dismissed second appeal on basis of concurrent findings of fact that Board failed to prove encroachment by respondents — Order of High Court liable to be set aside. R. S. A. No. 3374 of 2003, D/- 16-1-2007 (Punj. and Har.) - Reversed. Local Commissioner — Can be appointed even at appellate stage — Boundary disputes — Encroachment — Earlier demarcation not carried out in accordance with law — Application seeking appointment of local Commissioner to demarcate land in question to ascertain encroachment — Rejected on technical ground, not proper — Appellate Court directed to appoint local Commissioner and accordingly decide issue of encroachment.

Local investigation — Advocate commission appointed by Court to inspect property — Duty of Commissioner is not to collect evidence, which is in nature of oral testimony of parties — But to graphically elucidate matter, which is local in character. Commission to make local investigation — Commissioner appointed by Court has got no power to delegate said work to any other person — Fact that delegate is an expert in field — Is no ground to accept his report.

Appointment of Commissioner for local inspetion — Report submitted by Commissioner — Found dissatisfactory by Court — Court should direct further enquiry and call for supplementary report from same Commissioner — R. 10 does not authorize Court to set aside Commissioner’s report if it was found to be deficient and did not answer point in controversy. Commissioner cannot be appointed to find out as to who is in possession of property — But he can be appointed to make local investigation to ascertain facts or other materials which are found in property and to make a report in regard to that matter to Court.

Appointment of second Commissioner — Permissibility — Application for appointment of second Commissioner on ground that first Commissioner while preparing report relied upon sketch which was suspended by High Court — Held, proper course with petitioner is to request trial Court to direct first Commissioner himself to make a local inspection again or to convince trial Court about unacceptability of first report and seek appointment of second Commissioner Appointment of Commissioner — Discretion of Court — Exercise of — Commissioner appointed before commencement of oral evidence — Not proper.

Appointment of Commissioner — Plaintiff seeking injunction against defendants from disturbing plaintiffs running vegetable market — Defendants denied existence of such market — Application filed by plaintiffs for appointment of an advocate-Commissioner — Commissioner can be appointed for purpose of ascertaining state of things that may be asserted and denied by rival parties — Rejection of application by trial Court on ground that plaintiffs could not seek to fish out evidence or establish a state of things — Improper. Injunction against dispossession — Granted in suit for declaration of sale deed as void — Injunction granted continuing for 9 years — Subsequent recall — Held improper — Early disposals of suit directed.

Temporary injunction - Suit for specific performance - Plaintiff not in possession - No prima facie case - Plaintiff had not acquired any right to seek relief of injunction against the true owner - Injunction rightly refuse Dishonour of cheque — Complaint — Limitation for filing — Payee not filing complaint after service of first notice of demand on drawer — Cannot issue second notice of demand to drawer and file complaint thereafter. Forged document — Mere alteration of document — Does not make it forged document — Alteration must be for some gain or for some objective.

Amendment of plaint — Application for — Allowing/rejection of — Principles to be taken into consideration.

Limitation for filing execution application — Computation — Period during which stay order was operating will be excluded.

Adverse possession — Is a question of fact which has to be specifically pleaded and proved — plaintiff neither asserted plea of adverse possession nor any issue was framed by trial Court in this regard — None of the parties lead any evidence on point — Held, appellate Court by erroneously making out an altogether new case which was not pleaded set aside judgment passed by trial Court and decreed suit filed by plaintiff. Effect of non-registration — Agreement of sale written on plain paper and not registered — Would not confer any right, title or interest to transferee — Transferee acquiring possession of suit shop in part performance of agreement — Transferee at the most can avail benefit of S. 53-A of T. P. Act only as shield and not as sword. Transfer of Property

Plea of limitation — Defence that suit was barred by time — Set up in Written Statement — No specific issue framed — Trial Court coming to finding that suit was barred by time — First Appellate Court and also High Court not going into said question nor deciding it before reversing judgment of Trial Court — Plea of limitation before Supreme Court under Art. 136 Suit could not be dismissed as barred by limitation without proper pleadings, framing of an issue of limitation and taking of evidence. Question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact.

Will - Proof of - Grant of Probate - No issue regarding validity of Will - One witness examined - Not supporting claim on due execution and attestation - None signed in his presence. Held that Will was not established. High Court's order upheld.

When a co-sharer sells his share in the joint holding he transfers his right as a co-sharer in the said land and the right to remain in its exclusive possession till the joint holding is partitioned amongst all co-sharers.Rights and liabilities of co-sharers - Principles governing.

Suit for specific performance - Agreement of sale between defendant-respondents (1 and 2) and plaintiff-appellant on 10-3-1989 - Suit property let out to defendants 3 and 4 and eviction suit was filed and decreed on their refusal to vacate - Before the decree could be executed two suits by TM, alleging that there was an agreement to sell the suit property to him and seeking specific performance, were filed against the defendants 1 and 2 - Said agreement referring to these developments and providing for performance on termination of proceedings in court - Trial Court dismissing suits filed by TM on 10-6-1992 - TM making an application for continuation of injunction order till filing of appeal - Trial Court rejecting the said prayer but ordering continuation of status quo for two weeks (24-6-1992) - Plaintiff put in possession of godown on 11-6-1992 - Plaintiff receiving letter dated 18-6-1992 from defendant to wait for the result of the petition before registration - 'L' sister of defendant No. 4, filing suit on 20-6-1992 claiming partition of suit property and to restrain defendants from alienating the property - Trial Court directing to maintain status quo - Defendants taking possession of suit godown on 24-8-1995 by breaking open the locks - Plaintiff coming to know from defendants I and 2 during altercation that suit property had been sold to defendants 3 and 4 - Plaintiff enquiring in Sub-Registrar's office and learning that suit property had been sold during the period from 30-8-1995 to 31-8-1995 - Plaintiff issuing notice to defendants 1 and 2 on 4-9-1995 and filing a suit for specific performance on 15-9-1995 - Tenant impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 - Trial Court dismissing TM's suit as settled out of court and L's suit for non-payment of court fees - Trial Court decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff holding that suit was not barred by limitation since plaintiff's notice of refusal of performance by defendants 1 and 2 arose only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 - High Court setting aside the decree since relevant date for performance was 10-3-1989 and suit was barred by limitation - Validity. Setting aside the High Court's judgment and affirming Trial Court's decree, held that though original agreement of 10-3-1989 had a fixed date for performance , the letter dated 18-6-1992 postponed the performance to a future date without fixing any date for performance. Second part of Article 54 is attracted and it was only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 that plaintiffs had notice of refusal of performance. Counted from this date, suit was filed within 15 days and was not barred by limitation. Plea of demanding specific performance is available only to vendor /defendant and is personal to him, and subsequent purchasers have no right - The plea that plaintiff must be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract must be available only to the vendor or his legal representatives but not to subsequent purchasers - SLP dismissed.

Limitation begins to run from the date the parties have stipulated for performance of the contract and suit is to be filed within 3 years from date so stipulated - Application for amendment changed the cause of action as the cause of action was to be stated initially in plaint but was not pleaded.

Suit for specific performance - Respondent had instituted a suit for perpetual injunction and by an application under O.6, R.17 CPC, the respondent got the suit converted into one for specific performance by order dated 25.8.1989 - Limitation had started from April 6, 1986 - Held that suit filed after 3 years was clearly barred by limitation Specific performance of contarct for sale - Under the agreement, date fixed by reference to the occurrence of certain event i.e. the redemption of the mortgage - Requirement of Article 113 - Actual day need not be mentioned on the deed, but the basis of the calculation which was to make it certain should be found therein.

Suit filed after expiry of 3 years from the date of knowledge of denial is hopelessly barred by limitation under Article 54 - Mere issue of notice in 1972 does not stop running of limitation once it has began to run - High Court justified in dismissing suit.

Suit for Specific performance of contract - Limitation -- Appellant entering into an agreement for sale of his land to respondent in October 1982 - Respondent upon paying certain amount as earnest money put in physical possession of the land -Sale deed was agreed to be executed and registered upon disposal of an appeal pending in High Court - As per the sale agreement respondent was to repay an amount of Rs. 42,000 to a bank being the loan taken by the appellant from the bank - Bank having filed a suit for recovery appellant issuing notice to respondent on 24-4-1984 directing him to pay the loan amount to the bank and get the sale deed executed within 15 days failing which the agreement shall stand cancelled - Respondent depositing an amount of only Rs. 10,000 in the bank on 25-5-1985 - On 26-9-1989 respondent filing a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale - Trial court decreeing the suit - Lower appellate court however holding the suit to be barred by limitation - On further appeal High Court holding that since time was not the essence of the contract the suit was not barred and accordingly remitting the matter to the lower appellate court - Validity. Allowing the appeal held that since the suit was not filed within three years from the date of expiry of the period of fifteen days specified in the notice dated 24-4-1984 it was barred by limitation. Suit for specific performance of agreement of sale - Suit filed almost 29 years after the sale agreement - Defendant disputing the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court and also taking the stand that the suit was barred by limitation - Trial court holding that it had jurisdiction to try the suit and dismissing the suit as being barred by limitation - Lower appellate court as well as High Court affirming the decision and dismissing the appeal - Validity. Allowing the appeal held that the trial court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. Applicability of Section 46 of the Contract Act and several other pleas available to the defendants which were required to be considered, cannot enable the dismissal of the suit on the ground of limitation. Matter accordingly remitted to trial court for fresh consideration of all the issues.

Agreement for sale of property - Form of contract and execution of deeds - Performance of contract - Limitation for raising the plea of specific performance - Private limited company (company) owning certain property entering into an agreement with first respondent for sale - Agreement for sale dated 18.4.1971 -Company receiving advance amount for sale - In May 1971 company filing a suit against some persons claiming ownership over the property and obtaining a consent decree on 3.5.1978 - Thereafter first respondent writing letters on 12-11-1979, 11.1.1980, 5.1.1981 and 8.10.1984 asking the company to execute and register the sale deed - Company also assuring the first respondent that it would do the needful - However on 21.8.1985 company refusing to execute and register the deed on the plea that the same became barred by limitation - First respondent filing suit for specific performance in 1985 - During pendency of the suit company selling the property to appellant - Appellant contesting the suit and disputing its maintainability - Trial court decreeing the suit - Appeals there against dismissed by the lower appellate court as well as High Court. Dismissing further appeal held that since the period of limitation got extended by conduct of the parties the suit was not barred. Execution of the agreement by the company in favour of the first respondent had not been denied at any stage. Even in the absence of any resolution on the part of the company or official seal of the company in the agreement the contract could not be held to be invalid or illegal. Decretal of the suit for specific performance consequently upheld. Agreement to sell - Whether time is es sence of contract? - Held that there is a presumption against time being essence of the contract - To make time the essence of the contract, intention must be expressed in unequivocal language.

Return of plaint — For want of notice — Permission under S. 80(2) for exemption from service of advance notice to defendants granted by Court — Case cannot be reopened for compliance of S. 80(1) of Code — Order returning plaint for compliance of S. 80(1) liable to be set aside. Suit for declaring compromise decree as forged — Not maintainable being barred by O. 23, R. 3A — In such case Court should exercise jurisdiction under O. 7, R. 11(d) and reject plaint as a whole.

Rejection of plaint — Suit for redemption of mortgage — No categorical statement in plaint that there was any transaction of mortgage between parties — No cause of action had been set out in plaint — Plaint liable to be rejected.

Rejection of plaint — Relevant consideration — Averments in plaint are relevant for deciding application for rejection of plaint and for that purpose plaint has to be read as a whole — Averments in written statement are wholly irrelevant for deciding application for rejection of plaint.

Rejection of plaint — On ground that second suit was filed without obtaining leave under O. 2, R. 2 — Second suit was filed for specific performance of agreement — First suit was filed for injunction — Cause of action was substantively same in both suits as both suits were based on agreement executed between plaintiff and defendants — Plaintiff omitted prayer for specific performance in first suit — Second suit was required to be filed after obtaining leave under O. 2, R. 2 — Suit was filed without obtaining leave under O. 2, R. 2 — Rejection of plaint proper. Rejection of plaint — Application for — At time of deciding application under O. 7, R. 11(d) only statement of plaint is required to be seen — No assertion in plaint that suit was barred by any law — Petitioner was raising voice with regard to maintainability of suit — Refusal to reject plaint, not improper.

Rejection of plaint — Suit for specific performance of contract — Case of defendants that Memorandum of Understanding entered into between parties is void and illegal — Civil court is entitled to take cognizance of every dispute of civil nature unless law prohibits it either expressly or impliedly from entertaining the dispute — Party seeking rejection of plaint under O. 7, R. 11 must show provision of law prohibiting civil court from entertaining the dispute or that an alternate forum or remedy is provided — Failure to show any such provision of law — Rejection of plaint not proper. Eviction decree on basis of Compromise — Enforcement — Eviction sought on ground of reasonable and bona fide need — Compromise between parties whereunder tenant agreed to vacate premises within stipulated date — Inference can be drawn that tenant admitted existence of grounds of eviction — Tenant not handing over possession after stipulated date —

(7)

S. 138 Dishonour of cheque — Registration of complaint under S. 138 — Duty of trial Court — Court should carry out proper verification before issuing summons in a criminal case under S. 138 — Following verification required while registering complaint under S. 138 stated.

Dishonour of cheque — Offences by companies — Petitioner, Additional Director of accused-company resigned before cheque in question was dishonoured — No specific averments in complaint as to how and in what manner petitioner was responsible for conduct of the business of company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning — Complaint against petitioner quashed. Court-fee — Suit for declaration that sale deed executed by plaintiff—™s father is null and void and for joint possession — Is not a suit for cancellation of sale deed — Court-fee need not be paid on sale consideration mentioned in sale deeds — Court-fee payable is computable under Section 7(iv)(c). Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 34.

Amendment of plaint — Delay — Not by itself sufficient ground to reject amendment — Court has to see whether by allowing belated amendment, real controversy between parties may be resolved — Whether opposite party can be compensated by cost or otherwise.

Registered document — Has lot of sanctity attached to it — Sanctity cannot be allowed to be lost without following proper procedure — Registered power of attorney — Mere filing of criminal complaint against power of attorney-holder — Not sufficient to revoke power of attorney.

Suit for declaration of sale deed as void ab initio — No relief claimed that sale deed in question be cancelled or avoided — Plaintiff not bound to pay ad valorem court-fees — Payment of fixed declaratory court-fees would be sufficient. 1975 Pat LJR 349 and 2006 (4) Pat LJR 443, Rel. on. Unregistered Sale Deed — Admissible in evidence as evidence of contract in suit for specific performance of contract — Also admissible as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered document. Specific Relief Act

Registration of sale agreement — Whether mandatory for seeking injunction — Applicant sought injunction on ground that he had purchased suit property and paid part consideration — Unregistered sale deed showing delivery of possession to applicant on payment of 85% sale consideration — Reliability — Had the applicant sought benefit of part performance under S. 53-A of T. P. Act registration of sale deed would have been mandatory — Since no such benefit is claimed, unregistered sale deed can be relied upon by Court in an injunction application. Instrument not duly stamped — Admissibility — Old unregistered sale deed not accepted by trial Court as evidence for want of registration and payment of stamp duty and penalty — Decision of trial Court upheld being as per S. 35 of Stamp Act.

Documentary evidence — Admissibility — Objection relating to deficiency of stamp duty — Must be taken when document is tendered in evidence — Such objection must be judicially determined before document is marked as exhibit.

Registration of sale deed — Validity — Suit for specific performance on basis of unregistered sale deed was pending before Civil Court — Jurisdiction of Civil Court is plenary in nature and, therefore, all questions in respect of execution of documents and receipt of sale consideration or execution of agreement are issues, which are required to be examined in civil suit — Invocation of jurisdiction of Registrar under S. 73 of Act would be abuse of process of law — Therefore, order passed by Registrar directing registration of sale deed during pendency of matter before Civil Court would be improper. Suit for specific performance — Plea of possession in part performance of oral agreement to sale cannot be raised by vendee.

Suit for declaration and partition - Petitioner along with his brother inherited suit property from his deceased father - Mutation of land was recorded in favour of his brother only - Evidence on record so also in Panchayat election list name of petitioner was shown as son of his father - Mutation attested in favour of his brother cannot deprive petitioner of his right - Finding that petitioner was son of his father and thus entitled to one half share from land in dispute - Is proper. Agreement to sell — Specific performance — Mere fact that there is stipulation in agreement that in event of default of defendant, plaintiff would be entitled to refund of amount — By itself would not disentitle plaintiff to decree for specific performance. AIR 2000 SC 2408, AIR 2000 SC 191, AIR 1999 SC 2309 and AIR 1994 Raj 259, Rel. on.

Suit for recovery of possession by person wrongfully dispossessed — Limitation — Is to be computed from date of actual dispossession and not from date of knowledge of dispossession — Finding recorded by trial Court by considering date of knowledge as date of dispossession and decree of restoration passed — Improper and liable to be set aside. Suit for recovery of possession by person wrongfully dispossessed — Relationship of tenancy among landlord and tenant not disputed between parties — Court-fees deposited in terms of S. 41(1)(d) — Proper.

Agreement of sale — Payment of entire consideration and possession also delivered — Execution of sale deed but failure to get it registered — Suit for specific performance on basis of executed agreement — Maintainable. Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), Ss. 53A and 55(1)(d). Registration Act (16 of 1908), S. 59. Readiness and willingness — Purchaser discharging all obligation under agreement — Failure only on part of vendor to get sale deed registered — Lack of proper pleadings regarding readiness and willingness, held on facts should not be a ground for denial of relief of specific performance

Agreement to sell — Suit for specific performance — Readiness and willingness — Plaintiff vendee not pleading that he was ready and willing to pay balance amount or that he made any effort to pay the same — Not entitled to relief of specific performance. (B) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 16 (c) — Agreement to sell — Suit for specific performance — Subsequent purchaser of property who were defendant in suit — Entitled to raise plea that plaintiff (prior purchaser) was never ready and willing to perform his part of contract. AIR 2000 SC 860, Rel. on. Under-valued instruments — Reference under S. 47-A to Collector — When can be made — Document when presented should be registered first by Sub-Registrar and then reference can be made to Collector if he deems fit and proper.

Chargeability of instrument with duty — Determination by Collector — Is revisable — Issuance of certificate by endorsement by Collector under S. 32(3) — Does not take away right of revision in terms of S. 56(4) — Only revisional order would be final and not the order of original authority — S. 53A (as amended by Bombay Stamp Act) would be of no assistance. Impounding of insufficiently stamped document — Insufficiently stamped document if admitted in evidence, S. 36 gets attracted and Court is prohibited from re-opening matter — The question of judicial determination of matter arises when objection is taken when document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an exhibit in the case.

Execution of document — Use of Stamp Paper — No expiry date — S. 54 does not require purchaser of Stamp Paper should use it within six months.

Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act (7 of 1952), S. 47A(1) (as inserted by Raj. Act 10 of 1982) — Stamp duty — Assessment — Relevant date for determining market value — Stamp duty on sale deed — Current market value at time of execution has to be seen — Fact that purchaser had to litigate for getting sale deed executed — Immaterial. Original Instrument bearing stamp of sufficient amount but of improper description — Copy of such instrument — Neither can be validated by impounding nor can be admitted as secondary evidence — S. 37 applies to document and not copy of document.

Impounding of document — Letter containing terms and conditions of agreement to sell immovable property — Nothing to show that rights and interest in property were actually created by oral agreement and letter only incorporated its terms — Letter in question is instrument u/S. 2(14) — Liable to be impounded for non-payment of stamp duty.

Presumption as to document 30 years old — Sale deed — Date of execution of document was mentioned as Paushsudi Ekam Samvat 1890 — Document revealed name of seller and purchaser and consideration was also mentioned in it — Names of witnesses were also mentioned and also as to by whom it was written — Possession and ownership of grandfather of defendant on basis of said document can be said to have been proved. 1957 Raj LW 267, Rel. on. Suit for specific performance — Necessary parties — Are one who are parties to contract, their legal representative or person who had purchased contracted property from vendor with or without notice — Any person claiming independent right in property in question, including co-owner or coparcener is not a necessary party to suit for specific performance. 1995 AIR SCW 1782 and AIR 2005 SC 2813, Rel. on.

Suit for specific performance — Necessary parties — Are one who are parties to contract, their legal representative or person who had purchased contracted property from vendor with or without notice — Any person claiming independent right in property in question, including co-owner or coparcener is not a necessary party to suit for specific performance. 1995 AIR SCW 1782 and AIR 2005 SC 2813, Rel. on.

Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell — Alternative relief of refund of earnest money — Grant of — Suit property purchased by bona fide purchaser during pendency of suit having no knowledge of prior agreement — Lapse of 19 years — Held, after lapse of so many years property which was sold to bona fide purchaser cannot be ordered to be re-sold to plaintiff prior purchaser — Relief of return of earnest money granted. Relief of specific performance of contract — Entitlement to — Suit filed by prior purchaser — Subsequent purchaser did not have knowledge of agreement between prior purchaser and vendor — Property was already in possession of subsequent purchaser — Hence, prior purchaser would not be entitled to specific performance of contract, in spite of his willingness to perform his part of contract.

Suit for specific performance — Impleadment of third party — Third party had semblance of title and interest over property in question by virtue of agreement — Third party can be impleaded in suit as one of the defendants. AIR 2007 SC 3166, Rel. on.

Specific performance — Suit for — Agreement for sale between plaintiff and defendants owners — Defendants subsequently sold suit property in favour of appellants — Impleadment of appellants who are subsequent purchasers — Restriction however placed on appellants that they cannot raise plea of readiness and willingness — Proper — Only issue that can be adjudicated in suit is whether appellants were bona fide purchasers for value without notice 2000 AIR SCW 442, Disting. Sale deed — Cancellation — Deed executed when transferor was suffering from alcoholic Psychosis — Fact of his mental illness proved by medical certificate — Deed in question also showing that valuable land was sold at very paltry amount — Sale being by person who was not of sound mind — Liable to be set aside — Unsoundness of mind of transferor — Is finding of fact — No interference permissible in second appeal. 2001 (3) Ker LT 580, Reversed.

Temporary injunction — Refusal — Validity — Suit for cancellation of sale deeds — Purchaser under sale deed in question was close relative and adopted son of seller, his right to sell his property was not in dispute — Purchaser had sufficient funds to purchase said agricultural land in question and adoption prima facie appeared to be genuine — Plaintiffs did not have a prima facie case in their favour for grant of temporary injunction restraining defendants from further alienating property or to direct status quo of suit property to be maintained — Validity of sale deed in question will be determined on basis of further evidence — Refusal to grant temporary injunction, proper. Bar to subsequent suit — When not applicable — Withdrawal of earlier suit cannot bar subsequent suit merely because there was some overlapping of cause of action in subsequent suit compared with earlier suit.

Suit for permanent injunction — Directing defendants to demolish construction made on encroached land and handover vacant possession — Suit allowed on basis of entries in Revenue records — Decree for permanent injunction in mandatory form passed without deciding title of plaintiff — Is improper.

Rajasthan Tenancy Act (3 of 1955), S. 15 — Cancellation of mutation entry — Delay in making reference to Board of Revenue — Effect — If a person has acquired tenancy/khatedari rights and continued to remain in possession of land for number of years — His rights cannot be cancelled after unreasonable delay in a reference proceedings. 2005 AIHC 3906 (Raj), Rel. on.

Specific performance — Suit for — Agreement to sell — Defence that time was essence of contract and plaintiff failed to pay within time — Agreement though specified time for execution of sale deed — Stipulation for forfeiture of earnest money in event of failure to execute sale deed also made — Indicates that time was never intended by parties to be of essence — Defendant could not substantiate plea that time was essence of contract and that it was plaintiffs who avoided to perform their part — Plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to decree. 1997 AIR SCW 956, Disting. (2004) 8 SCC 689, 1993 AIR SCW 1371, Relied on.

Khatedari rights — Claim for — Possession of plaintiff tenants on land in dispute on date of commencement of Tenancy Act not proved by any cogent evidence — Mere payment of land revenue would not itself prove khatedari rights of plaintiffs over concerned land. Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act

Rajasthan Land Revenue Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Construction of Cinemas, Hotels and Establishment of Petrol Pumps Rules (1978), R. 7 — Application for allotment of land — Scrutiny and enquiry of applications — R. 7(1) gives discretion to Collector to send application for advice of Chief town Planner — Word ‘enquiry’ denotes that in scrutinising application, Collector would collect all information about land in question and invite objections from inhabitants residing in village where land was situated —Order of Collector on its face showing that there has not been judicial exercise of discretion and objections from inhabitants were not invited — Collector has not assigned any reason as to why application was not sent to Chief Town Planner for his advice — Order of allotment set aside.

Allotment of agricultural land to landless person - Subsequent cancellation - Ground that petitioner was not a landless person at time of allotment as he held a notional share in ancestral agricultural land of his father - Finding recorded by Additional Collector that petitioner was not a landless person was based on misconstruction and misapplication of relevant law on subject - He based his findings on circular of revenue department but completely ignored schedule appended to Rules of 1955 which was then available on statute book - Order cancelling allotment - Constituted error apparent on face of record -Liable to be set aside

Rajasthan Tenancy Act (3 of 1955), S. 15 — Khatedari rights — Claim for — Petitioner has not proved that he was in possession over disputed land prior to Samvat 2012, period corresponding to commencement of Rajasthan Tenancy Act — Plaintiff could not be recorded as Khatedar in absence of either any allotment letter in his favour or an order of regularisation based on prolonged possession by competent officer — Plaintiff cannot be allowed to take advantage of wrong entries made in his favour — Mutation in name of plaintiff liable to be cancelled. 1987 RRD 2002, Disting. Reference to Collector — Validity — Land in dispute held to be Abadi land in earlier proceedings — Said decision having attained finality would be binding — State being party to said decision it would not open for State to question nature of land or vesting of title in original title holder — Reference proceedings initiated u/S. 82 questioning nature of land, improper.

Allotment of land — To be made in consultation with Advisory committee — Specific quorum of Advisory Committee provided in Rules of 1970 — Then contrary to said rule no quorum can be permitted by administrative order — S. 13(3A) specifically provided that quorum for constituting meeting of Advisory Committee shall be of three members of whom one should be from Member of Legislative Assembly, Pradhan or the Sarpanch — However none of them were members of Advisory Committee and therefore allotment so made would be illegal. Termination of rights and resumption of land — Power as to — Exercised on ground that land was used for non-agricultural purposes and that it was sought to be transferred by holder for non-agricultural purposes — Not improper but within scope of S. 90-B.

Mutation — Land in question was entered in name of Deity — Deity is a perpetual minor and rights of deity are to be protected by Courts — Sale of land belonging to deity is void ab initio and no power is vested in purchaser.

Finding of fact — Correction of revenue entries — Question as regards to total area of land of a particular khasra number is pure question of fact — Concurrent finding of fact by Revenue Appellate Authority as well as Revenue Board — Cannot be interfered with under writ jurisdiction. Revision — Delay in filing — Revision Petition Challenging order of cancellation of allotment after delay of 13 years whereas only 60 days is provided under the Rules of 1975 to challenge the said order — Revision held barred by laches.

aipur Development Authority (Jaipur Region), Building Bye-laws (2000) Bye-law 19.8 — Floor area ratio — Fixation, of — Auction of property — Sale deed stipulating that floor area ratio was 1.0 in terms of bye-laws then existing — Sale deed further providing that buyer gets additional floor area ratio consequent upon any changes in bye-laws — New Bye-laws of 2000 increasing floor area ratio but specifically providing that increase in floor ratio would not apply to plots sold in auction — Effect of such bye-law cannot be ignored — Plea of estoppel cannot be invoked in such case. Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 115. D. B. Civil Spl. Appeal No. 10 of 2005, D/- 2-3-2006 (Raj), Reversed. Modification in Master plan — Notification permitting land use from ecological to residential — Validity — Decision taken in interest of city of Jaipur, growing pressure on land for housing and considering fact that all land was private Khatedari land and was in close vicinity of Jaipur City — Therefore, in order to prevent unplanned housing, JDA allowed housing development on that land — It cannot be said that change of land use was contrary to Secs. 25(1) and 25 (2a) of JDA Act.

Closure of public road for development activity — It is necessary to obtain permission of Jaipur Traffic Control Board before digging and closing road — Armed with building permission respondent builder could not have taken upon itself power and authority to close public road — It amount to usurpation of authority by private person — Action of digging/closing of public road without necessary permission held illegal.

Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban) Rules (1974), R. 15 — Allotment of land to Indian Oil Corporation for setting up retail outlets — Arbitrariness — Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) is public-sector Undertaking fully owned by Government of India — It is discharging functions of distribution and supply of petrol and other petroleum products thereby serving public demands as per policy laid down by Government which is in furtherance of interest and welfare of public — I.O.C. not required to have permission or licence to set up retail outlets — I.O.C. had allotted ‘A’ sites for setting up retail outlets to physically handicapped candidates and one such site was being run by itself — Action of J.D.A. in deciding to allot these sites to I.O.C. not arbitrary or unreasonable. Power of revocation and modification of permission to development — Competent authority — Permission to development granted by one Commissioner — Cannot be revoked or modified by another Commissioner — Only “Authority” as specified in S.30 could exercise such power — Power given to ‘Authority’ u/S. 30 could not be exercised by Commissioner.

Auction of plot — Auction held in violation of interim order directing to maintain status quo by High Court — Subsequent dismissal of writ petition — JDA would be bound by terms and conditions of auction — It can only be cancelled by a declaration made by Civil Court — JDA cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong and allowed to make party suffer which had complied with all terms and conditions of auction and had further invested huge amount — Reallowing JDA to reauction land would put premium on wrong cancellation of registry by JDA. Cancellation of sale deed — Party to registry of sale/lease deed has no right to cancel same and normal course open is to file civil suit for cancellation — In case sale is effected in violation of some statutory mandatory provision of law, consequence given in statute will be taken into consideration — Even then show cause notice is necessary as sale stands complete as soon as the auction is knocked down in favour of party.

Rajasthan Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules (1974), Rr. 15, 15-B — Settlement of land — By negotiation through single window clearance system without any advertisement of same for auction — Not improper — Provisions of law pertaining to the JDA Act and Rules of 1974 were fully observed — Decision was taken on basis of recommendation of Board of Infrastructure Development and Investment Promotion (BIDI) which was highest policy-making body of State — No interference. Effect of non-registration - Agreement of sale written on plain paper and not registered - Would not confer any right, title or interest to transferee - Transferee acquiring possession of suit shop in part performance of agreement - Transferee at the most can avail benefit of S. 53-A of T. P. Act only as shield and not as sword. Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), S. 53-A.

Cancellation of registered Sale Deed — Inherent power of registering authority — Fraudulent transfer of property — Sale takes place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee — Is void — True owner can nullify sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court — Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered — Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Ss. 31, 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. General Clauses Act Unregistered sale deed — Is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration — However petitioner is not debarred from proving said document on record and use same for collateral transaction.

Documents requiring registration — Mortgage by deposit of title deeds — Does not require registration.

Effect of non-registration — Affidavit (relinquishment document) only conveying intention of members of family to relinquish their rights in favour of their mother — It was not document which by itself extinguished or created any rights — Non-registration of document would be of no consequence.

Withholding of Registration of document — Not permissible on instructions of Collector-cum-Addl. Secretary (Revenue) — Reason being, powers of Registering authority is circumscribed by Act to factum of execution and identity of person executing document — Collector has no appellate or revisional powers over Registering Authority under Act — Executive instructions cannot override express provisions of statute. Refusal to register documents — Power of Sub-Registrar — Pendency of dispute of title /absence of title with vendor — Cannot be treated as valid ground/reason for refusal to register sale deed.

Sale deed — Endorsement by Sub-Registrar about registration — Presumption as to execution of deed and payment of sale consideration — Rebuttal — Executant lady was illiterate woman who could not read or write — She was issueless widow who observed parda all along while appearing before public authorities etc. — She treated defendant as her son and reposed full confidence in him — Evidence showing lump sum papers were put up before lady for obtaining her signatures and thumb impressions by defendant while she was sitting in rickshaw covered from all sides — Immediately thereafter she went back on pre-arranged taxi for her abode — All these circumstances speak against defendant and presumption in question was held to be rebutted by strong evidence. Registration of document — Proof of due execution of document — Execution of document is not mere signing it — But, signing by way of assent to terms of contract embodied in document — Mere proof or admission that person’s signature appears on document cannot by itself amount to execution of document — Registration does not dispense with necessity of proof of execution when the same is denied.